|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Brian E. ClarkBrian E. Clark Date: Sep 11, 2008 09:40
> It is our choice whether we use the God word. I believe it is wise to do so.
No, it is extraordinarily foolish to do so.
First, Kaffmann's god will be confused with
longstanding notions of God, such as he who was his
own son/father and who demanded a blood sacrifice for
sins. This god has nothing to do with Kauffmann's
notions of emergence.
Second, it is likely that that Kauffman's equivocation
is deliberate. By using the word "God" to describe
something wholly unconnected to traditional notions of
the term, he can thereby pluck dollars from the
pockets of people who believe in that traditional God
and who seek evidence that science supports a belief
in God.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
|
| |
|
| | 15 Comments |
|
|
Author: jonathanjonathan Date: Sep 11, 2008 19:02
>> It is our choice whether we use the God word. I believe it is wise to do so.
>
> No, it is extraordinarily foolish to do so.
>
> First, Kaffmann's god will be confused with
> longstanding notions of God, such as he who was his
> own son/father and who demanded a blood sacrifice for
> sins. This god has nothing to do with Kauffmann's
> notions of emergence.
The whole point is to try to come to a common
definition of the concept. Not an easy thing to do
of course. But the only way to arrive at some
consensus is if the concept is defined by scientific
ideas that are rational and testable.
|
| Show full article (1.99Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: thomas p.thomas p. Date: Sep 12, 2008 00:11
>>> It is our choice whether we use the God word. I believe it is wise to do
>>> so.
>>
>> No, it is extraordinarily foolish to do so.
>>
>> First, Kaffmann's god will be confused with
>> longstanding notions of God, such as he who was his
>> own son/father and who demanded a blood sacrifice for
>> sins. This god has nothing to do with Kauffmann's
>> notions of emergence.
>
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.19Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: jonathanjonathan Date: Sep 12, 2008 18:27
"thomas p." yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48ca1607$0$56794$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...>
>
> Why should a process be worshipped?
If it's responsible for all known order in the universe
physical and living?
>
>
|
| |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
Author: thomas p.thomas p. Date: Sep 12, 2008 23:28
>
> "thomas p." yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:48ca1607$0$56794$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...>>
>
>
>
>>
>> Why should a process be worshipped?
>
>
>
> If it's responsible for all known order in the universe
> physical and living?
______________________________________-
Responsible? A process is not responsible for anything.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: jonathanjonathan Date: Sep 16, 2008 16:41
"thomas p." yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48cb5d72$0$56794$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...>
> "jonathan" write.instead.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:BCEyk.31530$bx1.13339@bignews1.bellsouth.net...>>
>> "thomas p." yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:48ca1607$0$56794$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Why should a process be worshipped?
>>
>>
>>
>> If it's responsible for all known order in the universe
>> physical and living?
> ______________________________________- ...
|
| Show full article (0.63Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Damien ValentineDamien Valentine Date: Sep 17, 2008 00:42
On Sep 16, 4:41 pm, "jonathan" write.instead.net> wrote:> re·spon·si·ble
>
> 1 a: liable to be called on to answer
> b (1): liable to be called to account as the primary
> cause, motive, or agent
Yes, exactly. A "process"
-- a series of events that create a
particular result" -- cannot be "called on to answer" or "called to
account" for anything. A person who set that process in motion can.
It doesn't make any sense to blame or praise gravity for drawing water
downhill, now does it? Or nuclear fusion for making the Sun shine?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BradGuthBradGuth Date: Sep 17, 2008 05:24
On Sep 17, 12:42 am, Damien Valentine gmail.com> wrote:> On Sep 16, 4:41 pm, "jonathan" write.instead.net> wrote:
>>> re·spon·si·ble
>
>> 1 a: liable to be called on to answer
>> b (1): liable to be called to account as the primary
>> cause, motive, or agent >
> Yes, exactly. A "process" -- a series of events that create a
> particular result" -- cannot be "called on to answer" or "called to
> account" for anything. A person who set that process in motion can.
> It doesn't make any sense to blame or praise gravity for drawing water
> downhill, now does it? Or nuclear fusion for making the Sun shine?
So, in your mind there's never a living or dead soul responsible for
anything bad having taken place. Warlords like our republican Mafia
would certainly like your way of thinking. I suppose if something
good takes place that no credit is ever given or taken by a living
soul. Are you nuts?
|
| Show full article (1.01Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: jonathanjonathan Date: Sep 17, 2008 16:15
"Damien Valentine" gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0e7cfd8-d397-4e2c-95ba-6412131a6e4a@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 16, 4:41 pm, "jonathan" write.instead.net> wrote:> re
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: BradGuthBradGuth Date: Sep 17, 2008 16:55
On Sep 17, 4:15 pm, "jonathan" write.instead.net> wrote:> "Damien Valentine" gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e0e7cfd8-d397-4e2c-95ba-6412131a6e4a@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 16, 4:41 pm, "jonathan" write.instead.net> wrote:
>>> re·spon·si·ble
>
>> 1 a: liable to be called on to answer
>> b (1): liable to be called to account as the primary
>> cause, motive, or agent >
> Yes, exactly. A "process" --a series of events that create a
> particular result" -- cannot be "called on to answer" or "called to
> account" for anything. A person who set that process in motion can.
> It doesn't make any sense to blame or praise gravity for drawing water
> downhill, now does it? Or nuclear fusion for making the Sun shine?
>
> ...................
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.61Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
